Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was just a few weeks ago that our Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate said they didn't want to do any payroll tax cut for working Americans. They were opposed to any payroll tax cut for the 160 million working Americans, and at the same time they were arguing vigorously in support of protecting tax breaks for the very wealthy in this country. They had been very clear: They don't want to ask the very wealthiest to simply go back to paying the same tax rates that they were paying during the Clinton administration--a time when the economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created. They don't want to do that, but they were prepared to increase the payroll tax on 160 million working Americans. Well, they realized that that didn't sound so good to the American people, and so we are here today. And what the Republican proposal does is two things: It inserts into their bill poison pills which the President has said he will not sign, and they know he said that. What will the result be? It will be the same result that our Republican colleagues wanted 2 weeks ago, which is no payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans. But what they could not bring themselves to do, Mr. Speaker, was pay for that payroll tax cut for 160 million by asking very wealthy people, millionaires and billionaires, to share a little bit more in the responsibility for reducing our deficit. They didn't want to do that, and so their bill cuts other people. For example, their bill would cut the pension of the folks who helped track down Osama Bin Laden. Thank you very much for helping us track down Osama Bin Laden. We're going to cut your pension. We're going to cut your pension and that of other hardworking men and women who protect this country every day in that way. Who else are we going to ask to pay for it? Well, let's ask seniors who earn $80,000 or so. Let's increase their premiums. We don't want to ask folks over $1 million to pay a little bit more, share a little bit more responsibility. Let's ask seniors at $80,000 a year. And you know what? Let's change the current unemployment compensation law from what it would be if we extended current law. Let's change it in a way where folks who are out of work, through no fault of their own, they're looking every day for a job, let's give them less than what they would get if we extended the current unemployment compensation. So those are all the gymnastics that bring us here today, simply because the majority doesn't want to ask the folks at the very top to pay a little more. What our motion to recommit does is say, we need to have shared responsibility in this country. Let's work together to bring down the deficit. We all know from independent economists that increasing the payroll tax cut will raise another 300,000 jobs; so, in fact, our motion to recommit increases that. And it also does other things to hold Members of this body accountable. So the choice is simple. Do we want to ask folks at the very top to help reduce our deficit and provide that payroll tax cut, and do we want to hold this body accountable? On that issue, I defer to the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, I am.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I support extending the current payroll tax cut for 160 million working Americans. I support protecting the lifeline of unemployment insurance for those who remain out of work through no fault of their own. And I support fixing the broken Sustainable Growth Rate formula for physicians who participate in Medicare--which is precisely why I oppose this bill. Everyone in this Chamber knows it won't pass the Senate. The President has said he won't sign it. In short, it has exactly zero chance of getting enacted into law. Now, several weeks ago, that scenario sounded like it was actually the preferred outcome for a majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle. The Republican leadership stated that it opposed extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance. If the Republican leadership has changed its mind and is now sincere about protecting the middle class, it's time to dispense with the posturing, throw out the poison pills, stop scapegoating the federal workforce and start seriously negotiating a package that can receive bicameral, bipartisan support.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 384, which will reauthorize the sale of the highly successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp. I am a proud co-sponsor of House companion legislation. Breast cancer has or will eventually touch all of our lives. According to the National Cancer Institute, more than 230,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year and nearly 40,000 will die. Breast cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among women. It is also the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Designed by Ethel Kessler of Bethesda, Maryland and illustrated by Whitney Sherman of Baltimore, Maryland, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp was first issued in 1998. Since then, it has raised over $74 million for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. By renewing this stamp today, Congress is reaffirming its deep commitment to increasing awareness and finding a cure for this terrible disease. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, lifesaving legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1254, the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.'' I share the concerns that supporters of this bill have about the sale of synthetic drugs that are determined to be harmful. The issue here is what process should be used to determine whether a drug is harmful and should be banned. I oppose this bill because it circumvents the established process for scheduling controlled substances as illegal for any uses without proper scientific review. This bill short-circuits that process and substitutes the less-informed judgment of Congress for the more considered view of scientists and experts. We already have a process for banning drugs temporarily on an emergency basis. Indeed, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has temporarily prohibited the sale or manufacture of many of the compounds banned in this bill as more in-depth scientific reviews are conducted. I also support Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's decision to ban the sale of many of these drugs in the State. I believe that the temporary ban by the DEA and the State bans of these drugs are sufficient at this point to protect our society from the harms caused by these synthetic drugs. Congress should only act to add these drugs to the list of Schedule I controlled substances after the process laid out in the Controlled Substance Act is completed. The process established in the Controlled Substance Act requires that the Attorney General request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services ``a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substances should be so controlled. . . .'' This process is important for many reasons and should not be circumvented by this bill. Without proper scientific review this bill could create significant hurdles for medical research of cures and treatments for various diseases. During the bill mark up in the Judiciary Committee, statements from medical researchers were submitted stating that this bill could hamper their ability to determine lawful uses of these substances by making them illegal to possess. R. Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), stated that these drugs are dangerous, but acknowledged that there is ``a lack of sufficient data regarding the prevalence of bath salt stimulant drugs.'' Additionally, the penalties for possessing and distributing Schedule I drugs are serious. Adding over 35 additional substances to the list of Schedule I drugs, for which people can be incarcerated, should not be taken lightly by Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, farm dust is not regulated by the EPA, and EPA Administrator Jackson has clearly stated that the EPA has no plans to regulate farm dust in the future--which makes the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act a solution in search of a problem. Unfortunately, today's legislation is more than just a mere waste of time. Under the guise of protecting farmers from non-existent regulation, H.R. 1633 would define and then exempt a completely new category of particle pollution from the entire Clean Air Act, except under very narrow circumstances. This new exempt category of particle pollution would include both coarse and fine particles from sources that have nothing to do with farming--including particulate matter from mining and other industrial operations like smelters, cement kilns and coal-processing facilities. Whether this consequence is intended or simply the result of sloppy drafting, this legislation should be roundly rejected. Mr. Chair, with barely a week left on this year's congressional calendar, we simply don't have the time to waste on imaginary problems. The challenges our constituents face are real, and the hour is late. We need to focus on growing the economy, reducing our debt and getting people back to work before we adjourn for the year.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the so- called ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011.'' Federal agencies issue rules based on statues created when Congress and the President enact legislation. These agencies devote months and even years conducting research, gathering expertise from skilled professionals, and seeking public input when crafting major rules. Congress relies on these agencies to promulgate these rules, because they have expertise in a given area. However, this bill would require that congressional politics play a part in deciding complicated rules and regulations. By preventing agencies from enacting rules, this bill could undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public's health and safety. Supporters of this legislation make the anecdotal claim that this bill is needed to stop a plethora of regulations. They forget that Congress currently has considerable power, even the responsibility at times, to alter and influence federal rulemaking. Congress has the power under various means to review and reject rules issued by executive agencies. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may pass a joint resolution disapproving any rule within 60 days of receiving the rule. If the President signs the resolution of disapproval, the regulation is not implemented. Additionally, it is important to note that federal agencies are only issuing rules to implement statutes that have been enacted by Congress. Federal agencies must adhere to the statute when promulgating a rule. Congress can also impose restrictions on agency rulemaking through the appropriations process by preventing agencies from using funds to implement or enforce certain rules. Congress may also revamp rulemaking procedures. In addition to the Congressional Review Act, Congress has enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. All of these bills reform the procedures for federal rulemaking by federal agencies. This bill before us today is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. and Bahrain share a decades-old economic and strategic partnership that spawned a free trade agreement in 2006 and influenced the decision to locate the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the port-city of Jaffair. That partnership has endured for years in part because the U.S. viewed Bahrain as a nation committed to evolving toward a political system that allowed greater public participation and respect for religious tolerance. Events over the last year have dealt a serious blow to that long held belief. The Arab Spring inspired Bahrain's Shi'a majority to seek the full human and political rights that they say they have been denied since the Al Khalifa family became the rulers of the tiny island nation over 200 years ago. The Bahraini government's response to the largely peaceful demonstrations of the opposition groups who seek only a better life for themselves and their families has been violent and systematic. Dozens of demonstrators lost their lives; independent media outlets were silenced; Shi'a mosques were burned; thousands of Bahrainis were incarcerated and thousands more lost their jobs. Our worst suspicions were confirmed by the report recently released by the Bahrain Commission of Inquiry. The report described the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by security forces. Opposition members were abused, beaten and even tortured. I associate myself with the public statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as they strongly urge the Bahraini government to follow through on its promises and to systematically and expeditiously implement the forthcoming recommendations of the newly established follow-on committee. To achieve a meaningful and lasting reconciliation, all parties must engage in comprehensive political dialogue geared toward a mutually satisfactory power-sharing solution. The long-standing commitment of the United States to a strong partnership with the government and people of Bahrain will be influenced by how the government of Bahrain chooses to negotiate this challenging moment in its nation's history. We all will be watching closely.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the current House rule provides for consideration of three separate pieces of legislation: H.R. 3463, the Terminate Election Assistance Commission and Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act and H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. I oppose all three ill-conceived bills, because they weaken our democracy by giving powerful special interest influence at the expense of the public. We should be focusing on legislation to create jobs today and these bills do nothing to create jobs or improve the sluggish economy. The first bill, H.R. 3463, eliminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which was established as part of landmark political reforms following the Watergate scandal. The fund is critical in ensuring that wealthy donors and corporations are not able to monopolize the political process. Critics of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund contend that it is outdated and fails to provide enough money for candidates to run modern campaigns. I recognize that the fund needs to be modernized, but strongly oppose its elimination. Instead, I introduced H.R. 414, the Presidential Funding Act, with Rep. David Price to reform the presidential public financing system and again make it an attractive and viable option for candidates. Our bill would bring available funds into line with the high cost of campaigns, enhance the role of small donors, adjust the program to today's front-loaded primary calendar, and end the public financing of party conventions. Presidential campaigns should not be limited to candidates who can raise the most money from corporations and the super wealthy. H.R. 3463 also eliminates the important Election Assistance Commission, which was created in the wake of the 2000 presidential election to help states update their voting systems. The commission provides voting system testing and certification programs to ensure that every qualified citizen's vote is counted. Since the commission was created, it has greatly improved the accessibility and reliability of voting machines. The commission works to provide states with financial and informational resources to upgrade their voting and registration systems, train their poll workers, and improve access to voting machines for more than 37 million voters with disabilities. The Republican bill to turn back the clock on fair elections is opposed by a wide-range of public interest groups dedicated to protecting voting rights--including the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Common Cause, Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. Congress should assist the commission with additional resources; it should not eliminate it. The Republican leadership combined H.R. 3463 in a rule to pay for two other flawed bills, the misnamed Regulatory Accountability Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. In contrast to their nice- sounding titles, these bills create unnecessary delays and additional red tape in federal rulemaking. These delays could be detrimental to public health and safety. It is important to recognize that President Obama has implemented reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, the President signed an Executive Order that required agencies to determine if the benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to society. He also directed agencies to consider input from affected public and private stakeholders and experts when developing rules and regulations. President Obama required an interagency review of repetitive rules and regulation between agencies that may prevent innovation in the private sector. In response to concerns from small business owners, President Obama requested departments and agencies to decrease unjustified economic burdens on small businesses through increased flexibility. This increased flexibility can include postponing compliance deadlines for small businesses, establishing different requirements for small firms and large firms, and providing partial or total exemptions for small businesses. I believe that the steps taken by the Obama Administration address many of the problems these bills seek to fix without creating additional layers of unnecessary bureaucracy and legal uncertainty. In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require that federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of federal regulations on small businesses. The current law has worked well, but the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act creates excessive requirements in federal rulemaking by subjecting 50 additional federal agencies to conduct small business peer review panels and additional costly analyses. The bill would create major delays in important rules. These delays could adversely impact rules that would protect families from fraudulent practices in the mortgage industry or safeguard children from toxic toys among other things. The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act adds more than 60 new requirements in the federal rulemaking process. These new requirements would prevent government agencies from addressing public health, consumer protections, environmental standards, workplace safety and financial malfeasance and many other important actions. The new requirements contained in these bills could prevent federal agencies from fulfilling their core missions under the law. If federal requirements are overly burdensome, Congress already has the oversight responsibility to address the problem. I stand ready to work with all my colleagues to eliminate any outdated unnecessary regulations that are not cost-effective.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember two of my constituents whose lives were recently tragically cut short. Ms. Jane McQuain, 51, and her son William, 11, were found murdered on October 18, 2011, triggering shock and pain throughout my congressional district. Since 2006, Ms. McQuain and William had been receiving assistance from an outstanding organization, The Dwelling Place, whose mission is to provide housing opportunities and support services for homeless families in Montgomery County. The McQuains were one of many families helped by this program. Ms. McQuain was an extraordinary example of the success that can be achieved through hard work and dedication. In 2006, she came to The Dwelling Place as a homeless single mother, seeking a better life for herself and her son. Two years later, she graduated from the program with permanent housing and a steady job. Ms. McQuain immediately sought to give back to the community and devoted her time to helping families in crisis who were facing similar situations. She often returned to The Dwelling Place to share her experiences and to advise families on how to succeed during and after the program. Her son, William, had a bright future. His friends and family describe him as a vibrant and imaginative boy who loved sports, animals, and video games. Both Ms. McQuain and William were extraordinary individuals, who had successfully overcome great adversity. The Dwelling Place has been helping the homeless since 1988, when a group of activists, appalled at the rising levels of homelessness in Montgomery County, Maryland, came together to find a solution to this growing problem. The organization incorporates various aspects of affordability, length of stay, and life skills, striving to help homeless families achieve self-sufficiency. Families are assisted to develop the necessary skills they need for a brighter and more prosperous future. The Dwelling Place is not merely a place for families to live; it is a place for families to thrive. It provides families with critical training in parenting, communication literacy, and networking techniques. It also counsels individual families to work towards a strong, united, and independent family unit. Thanks to The Dwelling Place, Ms. McQuain was able to provide her son with a happy and stable life. Although their lives were brutally cut short, their resilience and ability to overcome hardship will never be forgotten, and they will continue to inspire the many families that face similar challenges. My congressional district is fortunate to have The Dwelling Place providing support to our community, so that families in crisis can establish new lives without fear and with the potential and support for a bright future. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Jane and William McQuain and in saluting the mission of The Dwelling Place and its dedication to assisting the homeless.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the second year anniversary of the unjust and inhumane incarceration in a Cuban prison of my constituent Allan P. Gross. A 62-year-old international development specialist and social worker with 25 years of experience helping people in the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and throughout Africa, Alan Gross has devoted his career to helping others with a single goal in mind: to improve the quality of life of the disadvantaged. And, it is as a result of these humanitarian efforts that he has spent the last 2 years locked up in a Cuban prison. Alan was arrested in Cuba while working on behalf of USAID to help the country's Jewish community establish an Intranet and improve its access to the Internet. The Jewish community in Cuba is small and dispersed, making it difficult to communicate amongst themselves and with the wider Jewish community around the world. Neither his presence nor his actions in Cuba were meant to pose a threat or danger to the Cuban government. For the first 14 months of his captivity, Alan was held without charge. Then, in February 2011, he was charged with ``acts to undermine the integrity and independence'' of the State. After a two day trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His appeal on humanitarian grounds to the Cuban Supreme Court was denied on August 5, 2011. Alan's health has deteriorated tremendously during his incarceration. He has lost approximately 100 pounds and he is suffering from a number of serious health issues, some of which his family fears may become permanent. Additionally, in August 2010, his 26-year-old daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer and, this year, his 89-year-old mother was also diagnosed with cancer. Given the humanitarian nature of his activities in Cuba, and given his health and the health of his family, sentencing Alan Gross to 15 years in prison was inhumane. If the Cuban government is serious about improving relations with the United States, it must recognize the harm its continued incarceration of Alan Gross is doing to that relationship. The Cuban government must act now and release Alan Gross immediately and unconditionally--for the sake of the relationship between the United States and Cuban people and for the sake of the health of Alan Gross and his family.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, on January 8, 2011 the nation was shocked and saddened by a senseless act of violence against a member of the House, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. That attack injured her and killed six innocent bystanders, including a Congressional staff, Gabe Zimmerman. Gabe, a 30-year-old social worker, began work for Congresswoman Giffords in 2007, supervising the constituent services operation and helping the people of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District resolve problems with Federal agencies and obtain government services. He was promoted to Director of Community Outreach, using his considerable talent and energy to engage citizens and make Congress accessible to them. In that capacity, he planned Congresswoman Giffords' ``Congress on Your Corner'' event on January 8 and was at her side that day. We continue to mourn his loss and pray for his family and friends. Gabe Zimmerman's life is a testament to the selfless work performed by Congressional staff every day for the American people. Today, we designate a room in the Capitol as the ``Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room'' to honor his work and recognize the dedication that he and all staff show to their country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today in the United States, 13.9 million people are unemployed. Nine percent of the American workforce is out of a job, worrying how to make ends meet. Nearly half are long-term unemployed, jobless for over 27 weeks. These Americans are looking to Congress for help. The President sent us a comprehensive plan for job creation and this House has not acted. We have over thirteen percent unemployment in the construction sector and roads and bridges to repair all over the country and this House has not brought an infrastructure bill to the floor. Local governments are facing tough budgets and laying off teachers and police and this House has provided no relief. Today we have a bill on the floor that will not create a single job nor help a single American worker. Instead, it will make it more difficult for them to assert their rights in the workplace and almost certainly encourage frivolous litigation. The time we spend on legislation like this is time we fail to spend addressing the real needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, and 868 and I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 869, 870, and 871.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today I join my friend House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan to introduce the ``Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011.'' Taxpayers deserve a system that is accountable, and this bipartisan legislation will provide another tool to ensure that we are good stewards of their money. The process created by this bill would enable the President to effectively propose the elimination of unnecessary spending from legislation that arrives on his desk for signature, and send those items back to Congress for expedited votes on whether or not to rescind that funding. We must do everything we can to make sure tax dollars are spent wisely and responsibly. Budget process reform cannot be a substitute for judgment, and it cannot replace the urgent need to put Americans back to work and to put our nation on a path toward long-term fiscal sustainability. But I hope this bipartisan step toward strengthening our budget process will be the first on the road of greater cooperation to meet our fiscal challenges. I want to thank Mr. Ryan and his staff for their important and thoughtful cooperation in developing this proposal. I ask all members on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this measure and join us in the hard work ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, Democrats remain committed to responsibly putting the budget on a fiscally sustainable path through a balanced approach that includes both spending and revenue. But the Republican Constitutional amendment defeated on the House floor today was not the answer. It could have dire consequences for the economy, on needed services to seniors and others, and on the government's ability to quickly and appropriately respond to changing needs. This Constitutional amendment would have made it easier to cut Social Security or Medicare than to cut corporate tax loopholes or eliminate tax breaks for millionaires. It required a roll call vote by the majority of the whole number of each House--218 votes in the House regardless of how many Members are absent--to raise revenue, but allowed spending cuts with a simple majority vote of those present. Why should there be a different standard for cutting Social Security benefits than for cutting even a dime of special interest tax breaks? The disparity clearly highlighted that this Amendment was not actually about balancing the budget, but rather about establishing a constitutionally mandated path to impose the Republican budget priorities. In fact, the Amendment would have required even deeper cuts than the House Republican budget resolution, which never reached balance. The Republican budget ran $1.6 trillion in deficits from 2018 through 2021, when this Amendment could have been in effect. This Constitutional amendment would have jeopardized Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, and all other guarantees to our citizens by limiting annual spending to that year's receipts. Regardless of whether the country has brought in receipts over many years, saving to cover upcoming obligations--and regardless of the retirement guarantee made to our seniors who contributed to the Social Security trust fund throughout their working years--this Amendment would not have let us make those payments unless we had an equal amount of receipts coming in that year. The Constitutional amendment also would have deprived Congress of the flexibility to address national needs and economic emergencies by limiting spending to the level of that year's receipts. For example, during a recession the Amendment would have required spending cuts or tax increases at the very time the country required additional spending or tax cuts to provide needed help and to boost the economy. Even in the face of a natural disaster there was no emergency exemption to allow immediate extra assistance. This year has illustrated the economic consequences of risking default on the nation's obligations, yet the Constitutional amendment would have made default more likely by increasing the difficulty of raising the debt limit by requiring a 3/5th supermajority vote. In fact, the need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy. Some have argued that this Amendment would have put the federal government in the same position as state governments and households, which balance their budgets. And while many states are required to balance their operating budgets, they still can and do borrow for capital projects. Likewise, families regularly do not balance their budgets on an annual basis; a 30-year home mortgage or a student loan are both examples of ways families can responsibly take on debt and pay it back over time. By requiring the federal government to balance spending and receipts each year--regardless of the country's economic circumstance or the need for immediate resources--the Amendment would have prohibited the nation from making necessary investments. This Constitutional amendment was not a responsible budget plan. It did not make any of the hard choices necessary to fix our fiscal and economic crisis. Instead, it would have enshrined in the Constitution a fixed budgetary goal without providing guidance on how to reach it or how to enforce it. The Amendment could send budget decisions to the courts, tying up federal budgeting and transferring the power to make the laws from Congress to the federal judiciary. If cases were filed arguing that the budget is not balanced, court involvement could lead to shutting down all federal operations--even emergency services. The Constitution provides broad guarantees for citizens, but is not designed to implement particular policies. Congress must confront the difficult choices before it. Passing the Amendment may make for good theater, but it is simply a device for pretending we are doing something while ducking difficult choices. Instead, we are working hard now to responsibly put the budget on a sustainable path, and that is the right thing to do.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, a caucus dedicated to supporting safe road travel worldwide, I rise to commemorate World Remembrance Day. World Remembrance Day was established to honor the memory of those who have been injured or killed in traffic crashes around the world. The day was set aside as a sign of the world's commitment to preventing road traffic deaths, to educating drivers and pedestrians about the hazards of road travel and to improving the safety of our roads. Road crashes are the leading cause of death globally for people between the ages of 5 and 29 years old. According to the 2009 Global Status Report on Road Safety, nearly 1,300,000 people globally die in road crashes each year. Unless action is taken, it is predicted that road traffic injuries could double by 2030, killing an estimated 2,400,000 people per year. The hazards of road travel are a persistent problem regardless of a country's wealth. According to a report by the Governors Highway Safety Association, a body representing the safety departments from around the U.S., the overall number of pedestrian fatalities in this country is increasing. Statistics such as these are the rallying call of a growing number of public safety groups like the Association for Safe International Road Travel. Due to ASIRT's determined advocacy, there is now an increased emphasis being placed by American officials on providing our citizens with the tools they need to travel safely while abroad. ASIRT's encouragement influenced the Department of State's decision to post road safety information on its website and to offer safe driver training at its missions around the world. I am proud of my association with ASIRT. Its commitment to raising awareness about the hazards of road travel is helping to make the world a safer place. On this World Remembrance Day, may we all take a moment to reflect on the importance of road safety.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's appropriations bills, which--while far from perfect--marks a distinct and bipartisan improvement over the House's original product. Today's bill restores key investments in jobs, innovation and public safety that were eliminated in the original House bills. In addition, we have removed the extreme policy riders on issues ranging from Wall Street reform to women's health. Additionally, in order to give the Appropriations Committees time to complete the rest of their FY 2012 work, H.R. 2112 extends the current Continuing Resolution through December 16, 2011. This conference report includes the Agriculture-FDA, Commerce- Justice-Science and Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills for FY 2012. Consistent with the $1.043 trillion cap on discretionary spending for FY 2012 set forth in the Budget Control Act, these three bills contain $128 billion in discretionary spending, with associated mandatory spending and transportation trust funds bringing the total to $297 billion. An additional $2.3 billion is provided for emergency disaster relief. The final Agricultural-FDA bill provides a total of $105.6 billion for domestic food assistance programs, including $80.4 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and $6.6 billion for the Women's Infant and Children, WIC, program. This result is $33 million more than the Senate mark and $9.3 billion more than the original House bill, which is appropriate given the increased demand for food aid during this economic recovery. The Food and Drug Administration receives $2.5 billion, which is $334 million more than the original House level, and will allow FDA to continue implementing the landmark Food Safety and Modernization Act to better protect the estimated 48 million Americans sickened by food-borne illness each year. Of concern in the final Agricultural-FDA bill is misguided language barring USDA from implementing new child nutrition standards and clearly inadequate funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which has been charged with regulating the rampant speculation that helped precipitate the financial crisis. Now is not the time to be under-resourcing our regulatory cops in this demonstrably troubled neighborhood. The final Commerce-Justice-Science bill allocates $751 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, including $128 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to provide training and technical assistance to U.S. manufacturers. The National Science Foundation, NSF, receives $7 billion, or $173 million above FY 2011, to enhance the basic research necessary to accelerate innovation and enhance U.S. competitiveness. And the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, is funded at $17.8 billion, which is a 6 percent increase over the original House level and includes $529.6 million for NASA's James Webb Space Telescope. Finally, I'm pleased that the final Transportation-HUD contains $18.9 billion for Section 8 vouchers and $9.34 billion for the project-based Section 8 program, as well as $45 million in housing counseling, which was not funded in FY 2011. Additionally, the THUD title in today's conference report preserves funding for key transit priorities, including $10.6 billion for the FTA, $1.95 billion for New Starts, $500 million for TIGER grants and $150 million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, WMATA. Unfortunately, this bill also mistakenly zeroes out high speed rail funding and cuts Community Development Block Grants by 12 percent. Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with every choice made in this legislation, I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working through these issues on a bipartisan basis in a fiscally constrained environment and bringing this much improved product to the floor today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my responsibilities related to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I missed the vote on the rule of H. Res. 463, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the severely flawed H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would make it difficult for states and local governments to enforce their firearms laws and puts the safety of the public and law enforcement at risk. State and local regulations of firearms vary dramatically. Some states have no standards for carrying a firearm beyond the minimum federal requirements. In Maryland, alcoholics and drug addicts, those convicted of certain crimes, or those with a propensity for violence or mental instability, among other things, may not obtain a permit to carry a firearm. This bill would require Maryland to accept concealed carry gun permits from other states even when the permit is not in compliance with Maryland law. Since there is no national database for concealed carry licenses, it is difficult for states to authenticate conceal carry licenses from out of state. This is one of the reasons Maryland currently does not recognize any out-of-state permits. The inability to quickly and accurately verify the validity of out of state concealed carry permits creates additional risk for law enforcement officers. William McMahon, the President of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, recently called this legislation ``dangerous and unacceptable.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this misguided bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, due to my responsibilities related to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, three weeks ago, this House passed legislation to repeal the 3% withholding rule for contractors doing business with the federal government and an adjustment to the formula used to calculate Medicaid and tax credit eligibility under the Affordable Care Act. Today's bill--sent back to us by the Senate--packages these two initiatives with the Veterans Hiring Tax Credit contained in the American Jobs Act and several other provisions designed to support veterans looking for work. Madam Speaker, it's about time. Finally, if only in a small way, we are moving legislation to accelerate job creation in this Congress. With unemployment rates for today's returning veterans hovering above 12%, these steps are the least we can take to support our service members transitioning to civilian life. Frankly, I would go further and complete consideration of the rest of the American Jobs Act without further delay. As regards the rest of the legislation, it is no secret that I would prefer savings from the adjustment to the Affordable Care Act formula be repurposed to other pressing health care needs. That being said, I support the adjustment and have long been a cosponsor of the bill to repeal the onerous 3% withholding requirement. Accordingly, I will cast a ``yes'' vote for today's legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise regarding H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. H.R. 2838 reauthorizes the activities of the U.S. Coast Guard and authorizes funding for the resources necessary to support the men and women who put their lives at risk every day to promote the safety and livelihoods of the people who use our country's waterways. The bill provides these resources in a fiscally responsible manner that advances the mission of the Guard while improving administration and reducing costs. Our nation's waterways are the recreational and commercial arteries of the country. The safe and reliable movement of goods and people on our lakes, rivers and along our coastlines, helped to build the United States into the country it is today. Since its creation, the Coast Guard has played a vital role in America's economic and national security. The investments authorized by this bill will help to ensure the continued availability of the critical resources necessary for the Coast Guard to continue serving and protecting the people of the United States. Despite its benefits, the bill has a major flaw. While the underlying bill enjoys bipartisan support, I share the Administration's concern about the Majority's insistence on attaching controversial ``ballast water'' language to the measure, whose effect would be to undermine the Clean Water Act and hinder states' efforts to control invasive species. For that reason, I will support the Dingell-Slaughter and Bishop amendments addressing this issue and will oppose final passage if they are not adopted.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of today's legislation, which will modernize our securities laws to support capital formation at our nation's start-ups and small businesses. Specifically, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (H.R. 2930) will facilitate the technique of ``crowdfunding'', whereby internet-based platforms like social networks are used to raise small amounts of money from large numbers of people. Under this legislation, securities offerings are capped at a maximum of $2 million with investments limited to $10,000 or less. Additionally, this Administration priority contains important investor protections to keep bad actors from undermining the crowdfunding market. Similarly, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act (H.R. 2940) will allow small companies to raise capital more easily by removing restrictions against general solicitation and advertising to potential investors. While maintaining the ``accredited investor'' requirement for participation in these private offerings, H.R. 2940 will make it easier for legitimate businesses to find qualified investors to launch and fund their operations. While I continue to believe this body should be taking up more comprehensive jobs legislation like the American Jobs Act, these initiatives both represent modest improvements to existing securities law and merit our support.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 2009, Kate Puzey, a 24- year-old native of Cumming, Georgia and Peace Corps volunteer was killed outside of her home in Badjoude, Benin where she worked as an English teacher. She was murdered by a Beninese Peace Corps contract employee after she reported that he had raped and sexually abused students they taught together. Had the legislation we are considering here today, S. 1280, The Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 been law when Ms. Puzey first arrived in Benin in 2007, it might have saved her life. Today, the Peace Corps does not require its volunteers to receive training in risk reduction or in how to recognize and respond to incidences of sexual assault. And, unlike other federal agencies, Peace Corps volunteers do not enjoy whistleblower protections. It is a shame that it took the untimely death of Ms. Puzey to focus our attention on the necessity of addressing these issues. S. 1280 directs the Peace Corps to establish sexual assault response teams made up of safety and security officers, medical staff, and a victim's advocate that can respond to reports of sexual assaults against a volunteer; requires the immediate removal of any volunteer who feels at risk of imminent bodily harm; and, requires the Peace Corps to develop and implement a process to allow volunteers to report incidents of misconduct or mismanagement, or violations of any policy of the Peace Corps in order to protect the confidentiality and safety of such volunteers. Every year, hundreds of conscientious young Peace Corps volunteers like Kate Puzey, support communities around the world, helping those less fortunate than themselves. As with members of our Armed Forces, these dedicated global public servants deserve to know their country is committed to their safety and will do all it can to protect them. As a cosponsor of the House analogue to this bill, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of S. 1280, in memory of the work and sacrifice of Kate Puzey and for the sake of those who choose to follow her into the Peace Corps.